Skip to main content
Glama

sage-plan

Create detailed implementation plans by leveraging AI models to debate, critique, and refine strategies. Input a task and absolute paths to generate a consensus plan, optionally saving results and full transcripts for future reference.

Instructions

Generate an implementation plan via multi-model debate.

This tool leverages multiple AI models to debate, critique, and refine implementation plans.

Models will generate initial plans, critique each other's work, refine their plans based on critiques,
and finally produce a consensus plan that combines the best ideas.

IMPORTANT: All paths must be absolute paths (e.g., /home/user/project/src), not relative paths.

The process creates detailed, well-thought-out implementation plans that benefit from
diverse model perspectives and iterative refinement.

When the optional outputPath parameter is provided, the final plan will be saved to that file path,
and a complete transcript of the debate will be saved to a companion file with "-full-transcript"
added to the filename. This is strongly recommended for preserving the expensive results of the debate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
maxTokensNoMaximum token budget for the debate
outputPathNoMarkdown file path to save the final plan. Will also save a full transcript to a '-full-transcript.md' suffixed file.
pathsYesPaths to include as context. MUST be absolute paths (e.g., /home/user/project/src). Including directories will include all files contained within recursively.
promptYesThe task to create an implementation plan for
roundsNoNumber of debate rounds (default: 3)
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the multi-model debate process (generation, critique, refinement, consensus), the creation of detailed plans, and file-saving behavior when outputPath is provided. It also notes the expense of the debate, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on error handling or performance expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Most sentences add value, such as explaining the debate process and file-saving behavior. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., reiterating absolute paths), and the structure could be slightly tighter by integrating the IMPORTANT note more seamlessly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering the tool's behavior and key usage aspects. It explains the debate process and file outputs, but it could be more complete by detailing the format of the output (e.g., Markdown structure) or potential limitations, which would help set clearer expectations for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by emphasizing the importance of absolute paths for the 'paths' parameter and explaining the file-saving behavior for 'outputPath', but it does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers, such as typical use cases for parameters like 'maxTokens' or 'rounds'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate an implementation plan via multi-model debate.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('implementation plan'), and distinguishes it from siblings by detailing the unique multi-model debate process, which is not implied by the sibling names 'sage-opinion' and 'sage-review'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for creating detailed, well-thought-out implementation plans through iterative debate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling tools, which could help differentiate use cases more precisely.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jalehman/mcp-sage'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server